Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T03:23:58.435Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Israel and the United Nations' Human Rights Agenda: The Inequality of Nations Large and Small

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2014

Anne F. Bayefsky
Get access

Extract

The Charter of the United Nations proclaims the equality of nations large and small. Nowhere is this principle violated more than in the case of Israel. And nowhere is the inequity more malevolent than in the U.N. human rights system. Reasonable and equitable treatment of a multiplicity of human rights claims throughout the world ought to be one of the hallmarks of United Nations actions. It is not. Instead, for Israel's foes human rights is the rhetorical weapon of choice. And the stage for their campaign is the United Nations. Neither the medium, nor the strategy has changed since the signing of the Oslo Declaration of Principles or the subsequent agreements on the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

To well-meaning human rights advocates around the world the United Nations provides a source of hope, a channel for their energies, a vehicle for their causes. Their very presence invests the U.N. human rights fora with an air of legitimacy and an aura of power. The environment is beguiling both to observers and political participants. But looking beyond the hundreds of resolutions, the thousands of pages of paper in six languages, it is possible to expose the malignant nature of the United Nations human rights system.

Type
Articles
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 29 , Issue 3 , Summer 1995 , pp. 424 - 458
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The United Nations Charter provides in its preamble “We the peoples of the United Nations determined … to reaffirm faith … in the equal rights … of nations large and small…” of June 6, 1945, UNCIO XV, 335.

2 Over three hundred resolutions per year are produced in the annual cycle of meetings of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, the Commission on Human Rights, the Commission on the Status of Women, and the human rights items before the Economic and Social Council, and the General Assembly.

3 The 1995 Commission on Human Rights 6 week session involved, according to the Human Rights Monitor, “approximately 11,000 pages of documentation produced by the Secretariat”: (May, 1995) 28 Human Rights Monitor 72.Google Scholar

4 Resolution 1503 (XLVIII), adopted 27 May 1970, Economic and Social Council.

5 Special Rapporteurs: Afghanistan, Burundi, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Iran, Iraq, Myanmar, Occupied Arab Territories including Palestine, Rwanda, Sudan, Former Yugoslavia, Zaire;

Country mandates entrusted to the Secretary-General: Chechnya, Cyprus, East Timor, Kosovo, Papua New Guinea Island of Bougainville, Southern Lebanon, Nigeria, Situation in Occupied Palestine, Occupied Arab Territories including Palestine, Human Rights in the Occupied Syrian Golan;

Independent Experts or Special Representatives: Cambodia, Guatemala, Haiti, Somalia.

6 “Southern Lebanon”, “Situation in Occupied Palestine”, “Occupied Arab Territories including Palestine”, “Human Rights in the Occupied Syrian Golan”. The six other mandates concern Papua New Guinea Island of Bougainville, Chechnya, Cyprus, East Timor, Kosovo, and Nigeria.

7 See Commission on Human Rights Resolution 1993/2, A, para. 4 (c), Report on the Forty-Ninth Session, 1 February -12 March 1993, E/1993/23, p. 44, adopted 19 February 1993, 26 for, 16 against, 5 abstentions.

8 The agenda item was introduced in 1970 as “Question of Human Rights in the Territories Occupied as a Result of Hostilities in the Middle East, Including the Report of the Special Working Group of Experts Established Under Resolution 6(XXV) of the Commission”.

9 The agenda item solely on Israel (agenda item 4), is scheduled by the Commission for discussion in two phases. Consequently, the 13% figure adds together the amount set aside for consideration of agenda item 4 alone plus the time which is set aside for both agenda items 4 and 9 taken together. Agenda item 4 relates only to Israel. Agenda item 9 relates to self-determination more generally, and since 1978, to “its application to peoples under colonial or alien domination or foreign occupation”; “foreign occupation” is intended to refer primarily to Israel.

10 An agenda item was devoted to human rights in Cuba for one year, and Kuwait/Iraq for two years. The former Yugoslavia was the subject of two special sessions of the Commission; Rwanda was the subject of one special session of the Commission. Israel, South Africa, Chile and Cyprus have been the subject of an agenda item (or sub-agenda item in the case of Cyprus) for between 15 and 25 years. The Chilean agenda item ended in 1989. The South African agenda item ended in 1995. Cyprus remains only as a sub-agenda item. In 1996 Israel will be the only state which is the subject of an entire agenda item of the Commission.

11 Senegal has diplomatic relations with Israel. The other two states are Malaysia and Sri Lanka.

12 The 1995 meeting of representatives of all special human rights procedures of the Commission on Human Rights adopted as its first recommendation: “[t]he independence and impartiality of the status of participants as experts needed to be maintained, safeguarded and respected, as an essential element in their contributions … in protecting human rights” (E/CN.4/1995/50, 23 October 1995, para. 62, p.16). This principle was again stressed in the 1995 report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. (A/50/36, 2 November 1995, p. 36).

13 The Human Rights Committee under the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Committee under the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Racial Discrimination Committee under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women under the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, the Committee Against Torture under the Convention Against Torture, and the Committee on the Rights of the Child under the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

14 62% fail to accept individual petition provisions in the case of the Torture Convention, 85% in the case of the Racial Discrimination Convention, and 34% in the case of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Statistics are as of December 1, 1995.

15 80% of states which ratify the individual complaint mechanism in the case of the Torture Convention, 84% in the case of the Racial Discrimination Convention, and 42.5% in the case of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, have never been the subject of a single complaint.

16 The Human Rights Committee revised its rules of procedure to give it greater flexibility in requesting exceptional reports. (A/48/40 (Part I), 7 October 1993, Annex K, p. 217.) Such reports have been requested, for example, from the states of the territory of the former Yugoslavia, Peru, Iraq, Burundi, Angola, Romania, Uruguay, El Salvador, Libya, Togo, and Haiti. (See CCPR/C/98, 12 July 1994).

17 Report of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, A/49/18, 19 September 1993, p. 124, Annex III, Decision I (44). “Urgent report requested from Israel”, adopted 7 March 1994: “The Committee expresses its shock at the appalling massacre committed by Israeli settlers … the Committee requests the Government of Israel to send it an urgent report … on measures taken … to bring to an end the illegal action of Israeli settlers and to disarm them”. (Emphasis added). The Commission of Inquiry, established by a Cabinet decision taken on 27 February 1994 two days after the incident, and headed by the President of the Israeli Supreme Court, found that the individual responsible acted alone.

18 The only other occasion it acted in this exceptional way in the region was in 1977. One and a half years after the General Assembly equated Zionism with Racism, the Racial Discrimination Committee took a decision expressing its grave concern about Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights and its effect on racial discrimination. It asked the General Assembly to take certain action. Decision I(XV), 1 April 1977, p. 92, A/32/18.

19 On June 30, 1994 Israel submitted an English translation of three chapters, the introduction, conclusions and recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry's report. Subsequently, on August 8, 1994 Israel submitted a note verbale in which further information was conveyed, and to which nineteen further documents were attached.

20 Report of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, A/49/18, 19 September 1994, pp. 21, 22, paras. 74, 85.

21 Letter from the Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations in Geneva, October 6, 1994.

22 CERD/C/282, 3 May 1995, “Documents submitted in compliance with a special decision of the Committee”. Following the criticism, the Committee adopted a formal decision, and devoted a page of its 1995 annual report, elaborating the excuse that the submission of information by Israel in response to the Committee's request had not been labelled “Report”. Report of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, A/50/18, 22 September 1995, p. 111.

This kind of biased treatment of Israel by CERD is not new, even in the context of the consideration of the regular reporting procedures. For example, in the case of the regular report of Syria the Committee adopted general conclusions which begin: “The Committee noted its appreciation of Syria's maintenance of dialogue with the Committee”. (CERD/S/CSR. 914–937, 3 November 1992, p. 244, para. 33). In the case of the regular report of the Sudan the Committee adopted concluding observations which begin: “The Committee expressed appreciation for the willingness of the Government of the Sudan to continue its dialogue with the Committee”. (A/48/18, 15 September 1993, p. 39, para. 124). However, when the Committee was drafting the concluding observations on the last Israeli regular report after the standard dialogue with representatives of the State party, the Chairman, Mr. Shahi from Pakistan said: “The Chairman, speaking in his personal capacity, noted that the draft began by stating that the Committee expressed its appreciation for its continuing dialogue with the Government of Israel. He was not sure whether the Committee expressed its appreciation for its continuing dialogue with other countries. He suggested further consultations should be held …” (CERD/C/SR. 914–937, 3 November 1992, p. 278, para. 3); Following this statement the language was removed from the Committee's conclusions.

23 Multilateral Treaties Deposited With The Secretary-General, ST/LBG/SER.E/13, p. 196.

24 For example, Djibouti, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Pakistan, and Afghanistan have made the same kind of reservation with respect to central principles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Malaysian reservation to the Convention on the Rights of the Child reads: The Government of Malaysia accepts the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child but expresses reservations with respect to Article 1, 2, 7, 13, 14, 15, 22, 28, 37, 40 para. 3 and 4, 44, 45 of the Convention and declares that the said provisions shall be applicable only if they are in conformity with the Constitution, national laws and national policies of the Government of Malaysia” (reservation contained in the instrument of accession received 17 February 1995). Such reservations are also frequent in the context of the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. For example, the Bangladesh reservation to the CEDAW Convention states: “The Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh does not consider as binding upon itself the provisions of articles 2, 13(a) and 16.1(c) and (f) as they conflict with Sharia law based on Holy Quran and Sunna”. Multilateral Treaties Deposited With The Secretary-General, ST/LEG/SER.E/13, p. 162. Article 2 of the Women's Discrimination Convention is the focal point of the Convention, requiring states parties to condemn discrimination against women and to eliminate it.

25 General Assembly Resolution 3379(XXX), adopted 10 November 1975. Revoked by General Assembly Resolution 46/86, adopted 16 December 1991.

26 Res. 1994/64, Adopted without a vote, 9 March 1994. Report of the Commission on Human Rights, A/1994/24, p. 185.

27 Supra n. 26, Preambular para. 7.

28 Separate vote of February 17, 1994 held on preambular para. 7. Voting was 34 for, 1 against, 17 abstentions. Vote was requested by Mauritius. Report of the Commission on Human Rights, A/1994/24, pp. 414–420.

29 Report of the Preparatory Committee, A/CONF.157/PC/98, 24 May 1993, p. 22: “To be inserted before paragraph 2”.

30 The precise events which took place in the Drafting Committee of the World Conference on Human Rights are as follows.

When the draft paragraph which contained the only reference to anti-semitism came before the Drafting Committee of the World Conference on Human Rights, it was introduced by the Chair of the Drafting Committee. The Chair had a copy of an unofficial paper which had been produced at the end of May 1993 by the Secretary-General of the Conference, Ibrahima Fall.

Prior to the World Conference Fall had convened informal consultations in late May among all interested delegations. Approximately, 70 to 80 delegations attended. At the end of the session he issued a 3 page unofficial paper in his words, intended to facilitate the consensus in Vienna. The paper had not been the subject of the consent of the delegations in attendance. The Fall paper dealt with 6 subjects, which he considered to be central to the outcome of the Conference. One of these concerned the general paragraphs on human rights violations. (In the Final Preparatory Conference document (finalized May 7, 1993), it was a general paragraph expressing concern with various forms of human rights violations which contained the reference to anti-semitism.) The Fall paper detailed a very long list of obstacles and violations including “foreign domination and alien occupation”, terminology directed at Israel, but nowhere among them was anti-semitism. Fall had obviously decided the subject should not be put forward. (Specifically, the paper said: “Amongst these violations and obstacles, the Conference in particular, expresses its concern at arbitrary detention, summary and extra-judicial executions, involuntary or enforced disappearances, torture, terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, lack of democracy, transparency in administrative rights, the absence of the rule of law, intolerance in all its forms, freedom of expression, the press, religious belief, the absence of an independent judiciary, extreme poverty and social marginalization, illiteracy, famine, lack of access to social services, corruption, non-respect of the environment, as well as racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, apartheid, foreign domination and alien occupation, aggression and unfair international economic order, the burden of external indebtedness”.)

In the Drafting Committee Chairman Saboia began his remarks by stating that he had decided to bring together a number of related paragraphs from the document which had emerged from the Final Preparatory Conference. He then read his proposed version which omitted any reference to anti-semitism. His list of “gross violations and serious obstacles to the full enjoyment of all human rights” did include, however, “foreign occupation and alien domination”, language directed at Israel. (His list in total was the following: “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, summary and arbitrary detention, racism, racial discrimination and apartheid, foreign occupation and alien domination, xenophobia, poverty and religious intolerance”.)

The discussion which ensued concerning the Chair's proposed language entailed some suggested additions by a number of states: “sexual discrimination” (Costa Rica, Canada), “lack of democracy” (Costa Rica, Chile), “economic and social rights” (Indonesia), “terrorism and all its forms” (India), ethnic cleansing (Egypt), “gender-based violence” (Canada). The Chair decided through the course of discussion to accept only a few suggestions and he then attempted to have the paragraph adopted. Following the Chair's use of the gavel to signal that he believed there to be consensus the United States representative expressed disappointment that “torture and extrajudicial killings” had not been mentioned and indicated his delegation's position that these violations would have to be mentioned elsewhere in the document. A number of other delegations also expressed their disappointment with the result.

The following day the Chair indicated that he was sympathetic to the views of a number of delegations that wished to revisit the issue of a list of gross violations and serious obstacles to human rights. And the next day he again introduced the issue before the Committee. He began the discussion by suggesting a new proposed paragraph which would condemn gross and systematic violations and serious obstacles to human rights including: “torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, summary and arbitrary executions, disappearances, arbitrary detention, all forms of racism, racial discrimination and apartheid, foreign occupation and alien domination, xenophobia, poverty, religious intolerance, terrorism, discrimination against women and lack of the rule of law”. In the ensuing exchange a number of states mentioned a few subjects which had been omitted. Throughout the day's discussions not one state said anything about anti-semitism. The Chair decided to incorporate a number of the suggestions and expanded the list to include “hunger and other denials of economic, social and cultural rights”. The paragraph, without reference to anti-semitism, was then adopted. And the only provision in the working document which had included it was dropped.

There was a second attempt to add anti-semitism into the Conference Declaration. At the very beginning of the Drafting Committee's work the Chair asked the delegations of France, India and Tunisia to serve as core coordinators of an open-ended working group charged with drafting the preamble. The Final Preparatory Conference had drafted a preamble, and most of it was not square bracketed, that is, subject to disagreement. These states were then to bring their recommendations forward to the Drafting Committee for fmalization. When the Chair brought the preamble to the floor of the Drafting Committee he began with the document issuing from the Final Preparatory Conference. The United Kingdom delegate asked the Chair what was the status of the work of France, India and Tunisia. The Yemen delegate immediately stated that only the Final Preparatory Conference document was to be discussed, not results of meetings which occurred outside the Drafting Committee room. The Chair responded that “consultations had revealed” that he would have to limit the Drafting Committee's consideration of the preamble by excluding the work of the three coordinators. Up to this point the Chair had been refusing to recognize the delegation from France who had attempted to ask for the floor. When the delegation from France finally got the floor, he reminded the Chair that he and two other states had been entrusted by the Chair with drafting a preamble and he asked that the proposals which they had agreed upon be put forward to the Committee as a whole. The Chair replied that he had “taken consultations” with various delegations and in his judgment their proposals would not be accepted or the subject of agreement. Picking up the demands of Yemen, he said some states would insist that the Drafting Committee stick to the Final Preparatory Conference document. He was therefore going to move on. Tunisia took the floor to support France's request. But the Chair ignored the request and moved on to the proposals listed in the Preparatory document. Only the delegation from Monaco suppported the French and Tunisian request and wanted at least to see their draft for information. No other delegation intervened to support the request.

What had been included in the proposals for a preamble worked out by these three delegations and which the Chair had prevented from coming to the floor was a paragraph which included a reference to anti-semitism. The proposal read:

“Anguished at the resurgence of racism, xenophobia and anti-semitism and by the emergence of new challenges such as ethnic cleansing, religious extremism and resort to violence which constitute threats to the achievements in the field of human rights”; Despite the fact that the Chair ruled that he would not put the French/Indian/ Tunisian proposals to the Committee and despite his professed concern to confine the Committee's work to the Final Preparatory Conference document, he had no hesitation in bringing forward to the Drafting Committee three new paragraphs proposed as additions to the preamble which were not in the Final Preparatory Conference document, had not been considered prior to the World Conference, and which eventually were added to the Vienna Declaration. (Vienna Declaration, preambular paragraphs 9, 11, 14.) Furthermore, the Chair then introduced as “Chairman's proposals” three suggested preambular paragraphs which had been part of the French/Indian/Tunisian preamble, and had not been part of the Final Preparatory Conference document — but not the paragraph which mentioned anti-semi t ism. (Those preambular paragraphs became 10, 15 and 16 in the final Declaration.) Furthermore, they were not uncontroversial and their terms evoked discussion and some amendment, a point which in the Chair's view also did not eliminate them from the Drafting Committee's agenda.

The facts make clear that exclusion of anti-semitism from the Vienna Declaration was a result of a combination of factors: outright hostility on the part of various Moslem states, Western indifference, and the collusion of a Chair more concerned with producing any document than with the principles at stake.

31 A/RES/50/5, adopted by concensus 23 October 1995.

32 The problems, it was said, were that various Moslem states would object, and secondly, more states (which might have included Russia itself) would have wanted to include references to other war-related offenses.

33 Statement by the Delegation of Indonesia, 1 February 1995, p.2.

34 In 1995 this was said by Syria.

35 In 1994 “Judaization” of cities in the West Bank, together with the subsequent remarks, were the comments of Libya.

36 Document circulated by the Observer for Palestine, E/CN.4/1993/70, 3 December 1992, at p. 1.

37 E/CN.4/1990/SR.51, pp. 15–16. Mr. Hussaimi, Observer for the Syrian Arab Republic.

38 The member of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations from the United Kingdom, Ann Grant, “recalled that no organization had been asked about its attitude to resolutions of the United Nations”. Press Release NGO/241, 13 June 1995, p. 7. Another member of the Committee, Mr. Karev (Russian Federation), “said the Committee was a technical body and should not allow the injection of political issues into its work” (p. 7).

39 Mr.Siddig, , Sudan, Press Release NGO/231, 13 June 1995, p. 6.Google Scholar

40 Mr.Andreadis, , Greece, Press Release NGO/231, 13 June 1995, p. 6.Google Scholar

41 Sahraoui, Hocine, Algeria, Press Release NGO/231, 13 June 1995, p. 6.Google Scholar

42 Mr. Sutoyo, Press Release NGO/231, 13 June 1995, p. 7 and p. 6. ECOSOC Accreditation, Category II status, was eventually recommended. Press Release NGO/242, 14 June 1995.

43 A/49/677, 23 November 1994, Mr. Maurice Glélé-Ahanhanzo (Benin), Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, at p. 7. See excerpts from the criticism he subsequently received in his report to the next General Assembly, A/50/476, 25 September 1995, pp. 5–7. Note that in the 1995 report, the Special Rapporteur believed it important to include the justification which was given for various recent violent anti-semitic acts in France, namely, in his words: “allegedly carried out in reprisal for the massacre of several dozen Palestinians on 25 February 1994 at the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron in the West Bank” (p. 27).

44 See supra n. 9.

45 For the ten years between 1984 and 1993 there were an average of 58 speakers on agenda item 4 entitled “Question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine”. In 1994 there were 40 speakers. In 1995 there were 35 speakers.

46 In 1992, 1993 and 1994 there were 6 condemnatory resolutions directed at Israel, counting one of the resolutions entitled “Question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine” which includes a “Resolution A” and a “Resolution B” as really two resolutions. In 1995 the two parts of the resolution with one title were collapsed and condensed, hence this year is considered as having 5 condemnatory resolutions.

47 Commission on Human Rights, Resolution 1993/2, Part B, paragraph 3, adopted 19 February 1993; Commission on Human Rights, Resolution 1994/3, Part B, paragraph 3, adopted 18 February 1994; These references were changed for the first time in 1995: Commission on Human Rights, Resolution 1995/1, adopted 17 February 1995. The latter does include language such as, “Deeply regrets the continued violations of human rights … since the signing of the Declaration of Principles … on 13 September 1993, in particular the continuation of acts of killing and the detention of thousands of Palestinians without trial…” (para. 1). Commision on Human Rights, Report of the Fifty-First Session, A/1995/23, p. 42.

48 Commission on Human Rights, Resolution 1994/4, adopted 18 February 1994; Commission on Human Rights, Resolution 1995/6, Adopted 17 February 1995.

49 Commission on Human Rights, Resolution 6(XVI), adopted by consensus, 16 March 1960, Report of the Sixteenth Session, E/CN.4/804.

50 Commission on Human Rights, Resolution 1994/64, Adopted 9 March 1994.

51 Commission on Human Rights, Resolution 1995/12, Adopted 24 February 1995.

52 Report of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, E/CN.4/1995/2, 28 October 1994, Decision 1994/112, page 125. The Sub-Commission has passed 1 to 3 hostile resolutions every year it has met since 1979, except for 1984.

53 Fifth sitting: Governing Body 262/6, para. 6 [amended].

54 Carmel Shalev, Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women; David Kretzmer, The Human Rights Committee; Yehudit Karp, Committee on the Rights of the Child. The election is held among states parties to each treaty, not among the entire U.N. membership. In addition, Mayer Gabay has been appointed to the U.N. Administrative Tribunal.

55 See 1993 First Report of the Credentials Committee: A/48/512, 20 October 1993.

56 In 1992 there were 27 negative resolutions:

A/RES/47/63, Resolutions A (Golan Heights), B (Jerusalem)

A/RES/47/64, Resolutions A (Palestine Committee Recommendation), B (Division on Palestinian Rights), C (Dissemination of Information), D (International Peace Conference on the Middle East), E (The Uprising (INTIFADA) of the Palestinian People).

A/RES/47/116 (Relations between Israel and South Africa)

A/RES/47/55 (Israeli Nuclear Armament)

A/RES/47/69, Resolutions E (Palestinian Refugees in the Occupied Territories), F (Resumption of the Ration Distribution), G (Return of persons displaced since 1967), H (Revenues derived from Palestinian Refugee Properties), I (Protection of Palestinian Refugees), J (University of Jerusalem “Al Quds”, K (Protection of Palestinian students); (in addition Israel abstained on Resolutions A (Assistance to Palestinian Refugees) and D (Offers of member States — grants and scholarships))

A/RES/47/70, Resolutions A (Omnibus resolution based on the Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli practices), B (Geneva Conventions), C (Settlements), D (Detention of Palestinians), E (Expulsions), F (Golan Heights), G (Educational Institutions)

A/RES/47/170 (Assistance to Palestinian People)

A/RES/47/172 (Economic and social repercussions of Israeli settlements)

A/RES/47/82 (Right of People to Self-determination)

A/RES/47/130 (Respect for non-interference in electoral processes)

In 1993 there were 20 negative resolutions:

A/RES/48/59, Resolutions A (Jerusalem), B (Syrian Golan)

A/RES/48/158, Resolutions A (Palestine Committee Recommendation), B (Division on Palestinian Rights), C (Dissemination of Information), D (Peaceful settlement of the Question of Palestine)

A/RES/48/78 (Israeli Nuclear Armament)

A/RES/48/40, Resolutions E (Palestinian Refugees in the Occupied Territories), F (Return of persons displaced since 1967), G (Revenues derived from Palestinian refugee properties), H (Protection of Palestinian refugees), I (University of Jerusalem “Al Quds”, J (Protection of Palestinian students); (in addition Israel abstained on Resolutions A (Assistance to Palestinian Refugees) and D (Offers of member states — grants and scholarships))

A/RES/48/41, Resolutions A (Omnibus resolution based on the Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli practices), B (Geneva Conventions), C (Expulsion, Detention and Educational Institutions of Palestinians), D (Golan Heights)

A/RES/48/212 (Economic and social repercussions of Israeli settlements)

A/RES/48/94 (Right of People to Self-determination)

A/RES/48/124 (Respect for non-interference in electoral processes)

In 1994 there were 18 negative resolutions:

A/RES/49/87, Resolutions A (Jerusalem), B (Syrian Golan)

A/RES/49/62, Resolutions A (Palestinian Committee Recommendation), B (Division on Palestinian Rights), C (Dissemination of Information), D (Peaceful settlement of the Question of Palestine)

A/RES/49/78 (The Risk of Nuclear Proliferation in the Middle East (Israel's Nuclear Armament)

A/RES/49/132 (Economic and social repercussions of the Israeli settlements)

A/RES/49/149 (The Right of the Palestinian People to self-determination)

A/RES/49/180 (Respect for the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in electoral processes)

A/RES/49/35, Resolutions C (Return of persons displaced since 1967), E (Operations of UNWRA), F (Revenues derived from Palestinian refugee properties), G (University of Jerusalem “Al Quds”); (in addition Israel abstained on Resolutions A (Assistance to Palestinian refugees), and D (Offers of member States — grants and scholarships)) A/RES/49/36, Resolutions A (Omnibus resolution based on the Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli practices), B (Geneva Conventions in Occupied Territories), C (Expulsion, detention and Israeli settlements), D (Golan Heights).

In 1995 there were 19 negative resolutions:

A/RES/50/22, Resolutions A (Jerusalem), B (Syrian Golan)

A/RES/50/84, Resolutions A (Palestinian Committee Recommendation), B (Division on Palestinian Rights), C (Dissemination of Information), D (Peaceful settlement of the Question of Palestine)

A/RES/50/73 (The Risk of Nuclear Proliferation in the Middle East (Israel's Nuclear Armament)

A/RES/50/129 (Economic and social repercussions of the Israeli settlements)

A/RES/50/140 (The Right of the Palestinian People to self-determination)

A/RES/50/172 (Respect for the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in electoral processes)

A/RES/50/28, Resolutions A (Assistance to Palestinian Refugees) [see infra n. 69], C (Assistance to persons displaced), E (Operations of UNWRA), F (Revenues derived from Palestinian refugee properties), G (University of Jerusalem “Al Quds”); (in addition Israel abstained on Resolution D (Offers of member States — grants and scholarships))

A/RES/50/29, Resolutions A (Omnibus resolution based on the Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli practices), B (Geneva Conventions in Occupied Territories), C (Expulsion, detention and Israeli settlements), D (Golan Heights).

57 A/RES/48/213, adopted by consensus 21 December 1993; A/RES/49/21 N (Assistance to Palestinian People), adopted by consensus 20 December 1994; A/RES/49/21 B (Financing of the Palestinian Police Force) adopted by consensus 2 December 1994; A/RES/50/58 H (Assistance to Palestinian People), adopted by consensus 20 December 1995.

58 A/RES/48/58 (Middle East Peace Process), adopted 14 December 1993; A/RES/49/88 (Middle East Peace Process), adopted 16 December 1994; A/RES/50/21 (Middle East Peace Process), adopted 4 December 1995.

59 A/RES/48/41, Resolutions C (Expulsion, Detention and Educational Institutions of Palestinians), and D (Golan Heights), 10 December 1993; A/RES/48/78, (Israeli Nuclear Armament), 16 December 1993.

Voting marginally shifted in Israel's favour in 1994 from 1993 when in the case of two resolutions about ten more states abstained, and about ten fewer states voted in favour: A/RES/49/132 (Economic and social repercussions of Israeli settlements), 19 December 1994, A/RES/49/36 (Omnibus resolution based on the report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli practices), 9 December 1994. Voting marginally shifted in Israel's favour in 1995 from 1994 when about five to ten more states abstained, and about five to ten fewer states voted in favour in: A/RES/ 50/22 A (Jerusalem), 4 December 1995; A/RES/50/22 B (Syrian Golan), 4 December 1995; A/RES/50/84 A (Palestinian Committee Recommendation), 15 December 1995; A/RES/50/84 B (Division for Palestinian Rights), 15 December 1995; A/RES/50/29 A (Omnibus resolution based on the Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices), 6 December 1995; A/RES/50/129 (Economic and social repercussions of Israeli settlements), 20 December 1995.

60 See: Report of the Chairman of the informal, open-ended working group, convened pursuant to Commission on Human Rights decision 1994/111, E/CN.4/1995/17.

At the 1994 Commission on Human Rights, the Chair endeavoured to review the agenda and to reorganize the clustering of agenda items and the order of consideration. The Chair proposed, for example, that the first item on the agenda be the Report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and of the Centre for Human Rights, that the next item be self-determination as it applied to any state throughout the world, and that the item on Israel be included in the agenda item which focused on every other specific country situation. (E/CN.4/1994/127, 8 March 1994, “Draft Provisional Agenda for the Fifty-First Session of the Commission”.) These efforts were opposed by states such as Iran, Syria, China, Indonesia, Tunisia, Libya and Kenya. The Commission ended by convening a Working Group whose process and mandate was designed to invite deadlock. At the September meeting Iran proposed limiting the impact of the work of all Special Rapporteurs (they suggested consolidating all of their work into a single agenda item (Item 5. E/CN.4/1994/WG. 12/CRP. 1) and reducing the overall attention to country-specific situations. (They renamed item 12, “emergency situations” and suggested it occupy 2 days of the Commission's 6 week agenda. E/CN.4/1994/WG.12/CRP.1/Rev.1, 21 September 1994.) Even reinsertion by the Chair of Israel specifically near the outset of the proposed agenda failed to persuade Iran and Cuba to engage in serious negotiations.

61 At about 25% of all condemnatory resolutions passed by the Commission.

62 In 1993 the Economic and Social Council adopted 3 condemnatory resolutions, one on Economic and Social Repercussions of the Israeli Settlements (Res/1993/52 by a vote of 41 for, 1 against, 3 abstention, 29 July 1993), one on Palestinian women (Res/ 1993/15 by a vote of 32 for, 1 against, 1 abstention, 27 July 1993), and one on Assistance to the Palestinian people (Res/1993/78 by a vote of 45 for, 1 against and 0 abstentions, 30 July 1993). It also adopted Res/1993/253, by a vote of 26 for, 12 against, 8 abstentions, 28 July 1993, creating the Special Rapporteur on Israel.

In 1994 the Economic and Social Council adopted one condemnatory resolution: Res/1994/45, 29 July 1994 by a vote of 46 for, 1 against, 3 abstentions. (Economic and Social Repercussions of the Israeli Settlements, A/49/3, Report of the Economic and Social Council, p. 78.) The resolution on Assistance to the Palestinians was adopted by consensus.

In 1995 the Economic and Social Council adopted 3 condemnatory or negative resolutions: Res/1995/49 by a vote of 45 for, 1 against, 5 abstentions, 28 July 1995 (Economic and Social Repercussions of the Israeli Settlements), Res/1995/30 by a vote of 43 for, 1 against, 1 abstention, 25 July 1995 (Palestinian women), Res/1995/278 by a vote of 47 for, 1 against, 1 abstention, 25 July 1995, (Human rights situation in southern Lebanon).

In 1994 and 1995 resolutions in support of the Middle East peace process were also adopted: 1994/44, 29 July 1994; 1995/52, 28 July 1995.

In 1993 the Commission on the Status of Women adopted a condemnatory Draft Resolution VII on Palestinian women, 26 March 1993. The vote was 28 for, 1 against (United States), 9 abstentions.

In 1994 the Commission on the Status of Women adopted a condemnatory Resolution 38/4 on Palestinian women, 18 March 1994. The vote was 38 for, 1 against (United States), 3 absentions.

In 1995 the Commission on the Status of Women adopted a condemnatory Draft Resolution II on Palestinian women, 31 March 1995. The resolution was adopted by consensus. The United States was no longer a member of the Commission.

In 1994 and 1995 the Commission on the Status of Women also adopted resolutions on the integration of women in the Middle East peace process: Resolution 38/1, 18 March 1994, and Resolution 39/3, 29 March 1995.

63 The first report was made in 1979.

64 The June 1967 war is described in an October 1994 publication of the United Nations Department of Public Information this way: “On 5 June 1967, hostilities broke out between Israel, Egypt, Jordan and Syria”. The United Nations and the Question of Palestine, DPI/481–94–93324, p. 9.

A publication United Nations International Non-Governmental Meeting and European Non-Governmental Symposium on Question of Palestine, held in Vienna 29 August — 1 September 1995, contains a message from Yasser Arafat stating, for example: “It is now two years since the Declaration of Principles was signed, yet little of the Agreement has been implemented. … I would like to call … for … assistance in the efforts of the Palestinian National Authority so that we can establish … [an] independent State with Jerusalem as its capital …” (pp. 20–21).

Publications produced after September 1993 continue to include, for example, expansive notions of the right of return (Ilan Halevi, Special Advisor to Yasser Arafat, United Nations International NGO Meeting, 29 August-1 September 1994, p. 14), “3.5 million Palestinian refugees” (Zakaria Abderahim, Director General of the PLO Department for Returnee Affairs, United Nations International NGO Meeting, 29 August — 1 September 1995, p. 12), sovereignty over Jerusalem, (Ibrahim Shaaban, Director of the Palestinian Housing Council, United Nations International NGO Meeting, 29 August-1 September 1994, p. 7), and reparations — “reparations should also cover the cost of the use of Palestinian private and state property and water resources by Jewish settlements for the past 29 years of occupation” (Ibrahim Matar, Deputy Director of American Near East Refugee Aid, United Nations International NGO Meeting, 29 August-1 September 1995, p. 11).

Publications produced since September 1993 also include remarks like those of Eyad El-Sarraj, Director of the Gaza Community Mental Health Programme: “Palestinian society had developed characteristics of ‘Victim psychology’, which in many ways was a mirror image of the Jews, of the Israelis. … In the past seven years about 85,000 Palestinian youths had been jailed and according to the International Red Cross Committee in Gaza, 75 per cent of them had been systematically tortured. About 60,000 Palestinian children in Gaza, below the age of 15, were suffering from some emotional problems that were a direct result of trauma at the hands of Israeli soldiers”. Eleventh United Nations North American NGO Symposium on the Question of Palestine, 6–8 July 1994, p. 10.

65 This was created following a 1977 General Assembly resolution, RES 32/40 B, 2 December 1977. It was originally named a Special Unit on Palestinian Rights.

66 See each of the series of “International NGO Meeting on the Question of Palestine” (1984-); “United Nations Latin American and Caribbean Regional Seminar on the Question of Palestine” (1990-); “Asian Regional NGO Symposium on the Question of Palestine” (1985-); “European Regional NGO Symosium on the Question of Palestine” (1986-); “North American NGO Symposium on the Question of Palestine” (1984-).

67 1980 on.

68 For monographs see: Report of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, A/50/35, 17 November 1995, pp. 28–29. On expanded programme see A/50/404/Add. 2, 11 December 1995.

69 In 1992 there were 27 negative resolutions. See supra n. 51. No new resolution was introduced in 1995. Israel changed its vote, from an abstention to a vote against, on RES/50/28 A (UNWRA-Assistance to the Palestinians) which contains numerous, and some additional, references to General Assembly Resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948.

70 A/RES/49/78, adopted 15 December 1994, (The Risk of Nuclear Proliferation in the Middle East (Israel's Nuclear Armament)), 1994 vote: 60 for, 4 against, 100 abstentions; (This continued in 1995 when the vote on A/RES/50/73 was 56 for, 2 against, 100 abstentions); 1993 vote: 53 for, 45 against, 65 abstentions.

A/RES/49/36 — C, adopted 9 December 1994, (Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories, Expulsion, Detention and Israeli Settlements), 1994 vote: 145 for, 2 against, 17 abstentions; (This continued in 1995 when the vote on A/RES/50/29 — C was 144 for, 2 against, 7 abstentions); 1993 vote: 106 for, 2 against, 48 abstentions.

A/RES/49/36 — D, adopted 9 December 1994, (Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population of the Occupied Territories, Golan Heights), 1994 vote: 145 for, 1 against, 15 abstentions; (This continued in 1995 when the vote on A/RES/50/29 — D was 139 for, 1 against, 13 abstentions); 1993 vote: 85 for, 1 against, 68 abstentions.

A/RES/49/62 — D, adopted 14 December 1994, (Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine), 1994 vote: 136 for, 2 against, 7 abstentions; (This continued in 1995 when the vote on A/RES/50/84 — D was 143 for, 3 against, 3 abstentions); 1993 vote: 92 for, 5 against, 51 abstentions.

A/RES/49/87 — B, adopted 16 December 1994, (The Situation in the Middle East: Syrian Golan) 1994 vote: 77 for, 2 against, 70 abstentions; 1993 vote: 65 for, 2 against, 83 abstentions. (The 1995 vote returned to the 1993 outcome: A/RES/50/ 22 — B, 66 for, 2 against, 79 abstentions.)

71 See for example, concerning the “occupied Syrian Golan”, A/RES/49/36 — D, adopted December 9, 1994 by a vote of 145 in favour, 1 against (Israel), 15 abstentions. The resolution “deplores” Israeli action; previous usage of “strongly condemns” was omitted. See A/RES/47/70 — F, adopted 14 December 1992, 142 for, 1 against, 4 abstentions. The 1994 language and outcome was repeated in the 1995 resolution: A/RES/50/29-D, adopted 6 December 1995 by a vote of 139 in favour, 1 against, 13 abstentions.

72 See 1993 resolutions referred to in supra n. 70.

73 The Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices forwarded to the General Assembly in September 1995 begins: despite the “very high expectations concerning the improvement of the human rights situation in the occupied territories” following the Declaration of Principles, “the general situation of human rights in the territories still remained very serious and a matter for grave concern”. It then details a list of alleged abuses in the same vitriolic form as in the past. See Letter of Transmittal, Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories, A/50/463, 22 September 1995, pp. 5–7.

This Committee's Report continues to give rise to a number of resolutions in the General Assembly each year.

74 E/CN.4/Sub.2/1995/51, Resolution 1995/9, adopted 18 August 1995.

75 General Assembly Resolution 49/149, adopted 23 December 1994 by a vote of 147 for, 2 against (Israel, United States), 19 abstentions. The resolution “expresses the hope that the Palestinian people may soon exercise their right to self-determination in the current peace process”. The resolution was repeated in 1995: A/RES/50/140, 20 December 1995.

76 It is the almost unanimous position of the General Assembly that an undivided Jerusalem is not the legitimate capital of the state of Israel. See: A/RES/49/87 — A, on Jerusalem, adopted 16 December 1994, 138 for, 2 against, 7 abstentions; A/RES/ 50/22 — A, on Jerusalem, adopted 4 December 1995, 133 for, 1 against, 13 abstentions.

77 Report of the Third Committee, A/50/627, 10 November 1995, p. 6.

78 Al-Kidwa, Nasser, P.L.O. Representative to the United Nations, United Nations International NGO Meeting, 29 August — 1 September 1995, p. 8.Google Scholar

79 The five regional groups had the following membership from the 185 U.N. member states as of 24 May 1995: the Asian regional group (48), the African regional group (52), the Latin American and Caribbean regional group (34), the Western European and Others regional group (WEOG) (26), the Eastern European regional group (21). The United States is a member of WEOG for electoral purposes. Turkey participates in both WEOG and the Asian regional group. Estonia, Slovenia, South Africa and Uzbekistan have yet to join a regional group. See the United Nations Handbook, 1995, New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, pp. 20–21. Israel is the only state deliberately excluded from all regional groups.

80 Regional group meetings are an integral part of the United Nations activities. The schedule for such meetings are, for example, published in the daily Journal of the United Nations, where they are described as “closed”.

While many primary negotiations over resolutions and decisions occur in even smaller groups, these sub-groups often take shape in the course of discussion within the regional groups. Lack of access to regional group meetings, for instance, at the early stages of negotiation when leadership roles emerge, or when straw votes are taken internally to indicate differences of opinion within the unit, profoundly marginalizes Israel from the work of the United Nations. Furthermore, one member of each group is routinely selected to form the so-called Bureau for any given session of a particular U.N. body like the Commission on Human Rights, or one of the General Assembly's main committees. Members of the Bureau play a significant role in a meeting's operation.

81 Commission on Human Rights, Resolution 1993/2(A), adopted 19 February 1993. The vote was 26 for, 16 against, 5 abstentions.

82 E/CN.4./1995/19, 13 December 1994, Report on the human rights situation in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, submitted by Mr. René Felber: “… bilateral solutions are being sought for the establishment of peace and new relations between the States of the Middle East … It is for the international community to support the process and the negotiations now under way, encourage a successful outcome and facilitate the implementation of the agreements reached. … The solution of course lies in the establishment of normal peaceful relations between States, to guarantee the existence and security of each of them …. It is in this spirit that we submit this report, which naturally concludes with a proposal to do away with our services, and even to do away with appointing a Special Rapporteur in the occupied territories altogether” (pages 13–14).

83 See the following resolutions of the General Assembly: A/RES/45/163, adopted 18 December 1990; A/RES/46/129, adopted 17 December 1991; A/RES/47/131, adopted 18 December 1992; A/RES/48/125, adopted 20 December 1993; A/RES/49/181, adopted 23 December 1994; A/RES/50/174, adopted 22 December 1995.

84 The history of the concept of non-selectivity in General Assembly Resolutions is as follows:

In 1985 Angola, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Syria, Ukranian S.S.R. and Viet Nam introduced a resolution in the General Assembly entitled: “Inadmissability of exploitation or distortion of human rights issues for interference in the internal affairs of States.” (A/C.3/40/L.83, 4 December 1985; A/C.3/40/L.83/Rev.1, 5 December 1985.) The draft resolution stressed the importance of “non-intervention and non-interference in the internal affairs of States” even for the purpose of “the promotion of human rights and freedoms”. It also spoke of a duty of states to “refrain from the use of human rights issues as a means of interference in the internal affairs of States”. Consideration of the resolution was deferred to the following year.

In 1986 most of the same players introduced a similar resolution, now retitled “Strengthening international co-operation in the field of human rights”. (A/C.3/41/L.100, 25 November 1986.) This resolution made a not so subtle effort to rephrase the goal of “non-intervention” as “co-operation”. A/C.3/41/L.100, 25 November 1986, preambular para. 4.) The opposite of co-operation was said to be “flagrant and groundless interference”. (A/C.3/41/L.100, 25 November 1986, operative para. 4.) A watered down version was eventually adopted in 1986. (General Assembly Resolution 41/155, adopted by a vote 154 for, none against, one abstention (United States), 4 December 1986.

In 1990 Cuba introduced a draft resolution at the General Assembly entitled “Strengthening of United Nations action in the human rights field through the promotion of international co-operation and the strict observance of the principle of non-intervention”. (A/C.3/45/L.82, 26 November 1990. Strengthening U.N. action in the field of human rights required, in the Cuban view, “the promotion of international cooperation and the strict observance of the principle of non-intervention”. (A/C.3/45/SR.55, page 15, Third Committee, 28 November 1990.) The version of this resolution which was eventually adopted had a new title: “Strengthening of United Nations action in the human rights field through the promotion of international co-operation and the importance of non-selectivity, impartiality and objectivity”. (A/C.3/45/L.82/Rev. 2, as orally revised, which became General Assembly Resolution 45/163, adopted by consensus 18 December 1990.) In adding, for the first time the reference to “non-selectivity”, the Cuban delegate stated that this principle — along with impartiality and objectivity — “excluded any manipulation of human rights for political ends”. (A/C.3/45/SR.63, Third Committee, 5 December 1990, page 3, para. 6.) Every year since 1990 this resolution has been repeated, with a few minor changes, by the General Assembly. It is adopted by consensus.

Even from the transformations of the title of the resolution over the years the progression and interrelationship of key concepts is clear: non-intervention — noninterference — co-operation — respect for territorial integrity — non-selectivity.

85 The drafting history of the term at the World Conference testifies as to the intention and identity of its sponsors.

When the Drafting Committee considered principle 1 which reaffirmed the commitment of all states to fulfill their obligations to promote universal respect for, and observance and protection of all human rights, Sudan proposed that the word “universal” be removed and replaced by “on an equal and non-selective basis”. A number of states, in particular, Egypt, Syria, Pakistan, Jordan and Cuba were anxious to include references to “non-selectivity” throughout the text. Cuba wanted to add the caveat of non-selectivity to a proposal concerning the importance of Special Rapporteurs. Malaysia suggested adding “non-selectivity” to a proposed paragraph which asked the International Law Commission “to consider the advantages and disadvantages of establishing… an international jurisdiction for all human rights”. During the discussion of the idea of a High Commissioner for Human Rights Syria complained that accusations of human rights violations are only made against a handful of states for political reasons; non-selectivity they said is needed in the process first.

The use of the term “non-selectivity” reached a peak with the consideration of a paragraph devoted only to affirming the “importance of ensuring the universality, objectivity and non-selectivity of the consideration of human rights issues”. The United Kingdom and Chile, supported by Sweden, Hungary, the United States and Canada, proposed adding the idea that the concept should only “continue” to be invoked, in order to ensure that current mechanisms of selection of countries for examination could not be interpreted as inconsistent with “non-selectivity”. The insertion was opposed by Pakistan, India, Indonesia and Iran. Iran said specifically that there was nothing wrong with arguing that the United Nations had not been conducting itself perfectly in the past. The inclusion of non-selectivity was vigorously supported by Cuba, Pakistan, Mexico, Iran and China. They stressed that non-selectivity was a term already in use in U.N. resolutions.

In the end the principle of non-selectivity in the consideration of human rights issues was affirmed in the Vienna Declaration without the addition of “continue”. (A/ CONF. 157/23, para. 32.)

86 For example, in November 1993 at a meeting of the States Parties to the Convention Against Torture the publication of a report of the Committee Against Torture that criticized Turkey was raised. Supported by Egypt and Morocco, Turkey sought to include in the agenda of the meeting a review of the Committee's activities. Their comments stressed the importance of non-selectivity and cooperation with the States Parties. The Egyptian delegate added that all Committee reports should be submitted to the meetings of the States Parties for approval before release. CAT/SP/SR.5*, 29 November 1993, para. 83, p. 14.

87 See for example a paper produced by the Non-Aligned Movement in the course of a current Working Group of the General Assembly's Third Committee. It is dealing with the issue of the “Continuing Adaptation of the U.N. Human Rights Machinery to the Current and Future Needs in the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights”. The Non-Aligned Movement's proposal, is dated November 20, 1995, and is referred to as a response to the “Non-paper prepared by the Chairman of the Working Group of the Third Committee”. The proposal mentions cooperation and rationalization repeatedly and stresses the importance of ensuring that “there is no overlapping or duplication” among human rights organs. It also calls (a) for the establishment of a mechanism “for admitting as well as screening communications before they are forwarded to the Governments” — in the context of ECOSOC Resolution 1503 and gross violations of human rights (para. 30), (b) consideration of “the submission by thematic rapporteur [sic] of one consolidated report” — as opposed to the current 11 thematic special rapporteurs (para. 32), and (c) expanded consultations at the Commission on Human Rights in advance of the submission of any draft resolutions or decisions (para. 33).

88 In particular, Cuba, Iran, Iraq and Sudan. See supra n. 5. See also non-cooperation in the context of thematic rapporteurs and human rights working groups. For example, India refuses to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur on Torture; India, Iran and Sudan refuse to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance; China refuses to cooperate with the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention.

89 The lowest rate of ratification of all 6 major human rights treaties are from states in the Asian regional group. The following percentages of Asian states have ratified the treaties.

Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) 51%

Convention Against Torture (CAT) 19%

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) 40%

Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) 40%

Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) 83%

Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) 64%

The rate of ratification of individual complaint mechanisms is also lowest from Asian states.

CERD Article 14 2%

CAT Article 22 2%

CCPR Optional Protocol 15%

The second lowest rate of ratification of the individual complaint mechanisms comes from African states.

CERD Article 14 4%

CAT Article 22 6%

CCPR Optional Protocol 38%

90 Of those states having five or more reports overdue, 44% are from the African regional group, 20% are from the Latin American and Caribbean regional group, 18% are from the Asian regional group and 7% or less are from each of the remaining three regional groups.

91 See supra n. 24.

92 A/CONF.157/23, 12 July 1993, para. 5.

93 See: Cairo: A/CONF.171/13, adopted 13 September 1994, Chap. II, Principles, p. 14; Copenhagen: A/CONF.166/9, adopted 12 March 1995, Part B, para. 25, p. 9; Part C, para. 28, p. 11; para. 29, p. 11; Committment 4, para, (i), p. 16; Programme of Action, para. 16(d), p. 39, para. 66, p. 68, para. 67, p. 68, para. 73(j), p.72

94 A/CONF.177/20, Report of the Fourth World Conference on Women, adopted 15 September 1995. After quoting Article 5 of the Vienna Declaration and recognizing the significance of various particularities and backgrounds, the Beijing Declaration adds that “full respect for various religious and ethical values, cultural backgrounds and philosophical convictions of individuals and their communities should contribute to the full enjoyment by women of their human rights…” para. 9, Chapter II, p. 11. This attempts to claw back language agreed to in Cairo and Copenhagen since instead of having both (1) full respect for the multitude of values and backgrounds and (2) conformity with human rights, the agreement says full respect for values and backgrounds should contribute to the enjoyment of human rights. In the absence of such a contribution some would therefore argue full respect was not due. But others would argue that full respect was immediately due, and the contribution was a second-order or subsidiary requirement.

95 For example, during the Vienna World Conference on Human Rights, the same states which advocated qualifying the universal application of international human rights norms and stressed the significance of cultural particularities, made an equal effort to push for inclusion of the idea of non-interference in domestic affairs. India, Bangladesh, Azerbaijan, Cuba, and Iran all spoke in favour of a provision which would have emphasized “national sovereignty, territorial integrity, non-interference in the internal affairs of States, and the non-use of human rights as an instrument of political pressure”. In the context of a draft paragraph suggesting that the protection of human rights is a legitimate concern of the international community, inclusion of the word “legitimate” was the subject of objections by a number of states that offered weaker alternatives: Indonesia and Egypt (wanted “common”), Kenya (wanted “important”), Vietnam, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Myanmar wanted to delete the whole phrase. China stated that “if human rights are used for political ends, then it is illegitimate”. The appeal to cultural relativism during the Vienna World Conference was, therefore, not an isolated phenomenon. It was combined with an assault on universality, with efforts to place national legal systems beyond rebuke (see paragraphs on religious intolerance (A/CONF.157/23, para. 22) media (A/CONF/157/23, para. 39)) and to limit the role of the United Nations in scrutinizing human rights abuse. In other words, the claim for cultural relativism in the U.N. is part of a larger and calculated anti-human rights agenda.